quote:The senior intelligence official said the analysts’ judgment was based in part on monitoring of some of the Benghazi attackers, which showed they had been watching the Cairo protests live on television and talking about them before they assaulted the consulate.

“We believe the timing of the attack was influenced by events in Cairo,” the senior official said, reaffirming the Cairo-Benghazi link. He said that judgment is repeated in a new report prepared this week for the House intelligence committee.

Here’s how the senior official described the jumble of events in Benghazi that day: “The attackers were disorganized; some seemed more interested in looting. Some who claimed to have participated joined the attack as it began or after it was under way. There is no evidence of rehearsals, they never got into the safe room . . . never took any hostages, didn’t bring explosives to blow the safe room door, and didn’t use a car bomb to blow the gates.”

he Benghazi flap is the sort of situation that intelligence officers dread: when politicians are demanding hard “yes” or “no” answers but evidence is fragmentary and conflicting. The political debate has focused on whether the attack was spontaneous or planned, but the official said there’s evidence of both, and that different attackers may have had different motives. There’s no dispute, however, that it was “an act of terror,” as Obama described it the next day.

“It was a flash mob with weapons,” is how the senior official described the attackers. The mob included members of the Ansar al-Sharia militia, about four members of al-Qaeda in the Maghreb, and members of the Egypt-based Muhammad Jamal network, along with other unarmed looters.

The official said the only major change he would make now in the CIA’s Sept. 15 talking points would be to drop the word “spontaneous” and substitute “opportunistic.” He explained that there apparently was “some pre-coordination but minimal planning.”

I don't think Obama was/remains interested in covering up a terrorist act - He is interested in covering up the details of the ambassador's mission and the CIA's mission in Benghazi. Why else would they stay in a knowingly dangerous location, with inadeqaute security, and why would Washington go to such great lengths to create such a smoke stream after the invasion and murders? Something ugly was going on in Benghazi.

This is no different than the jobs report shooting through the roof a week after the election, the last two job reports were lies before the election, the welfare going up 400k report held till friday after election, this Benghazi thing is bigger than Watergate and if this goes away without punishment then this country is screwed for sure, this is a slam dunk of cover up and not one democrat is outraged wtf is wrong with these people, is there not one democrat who will stand for right and wrong....just ONE

quote:So yeah, I have been to Southwest Asia and the Middle East maybe once or twice in my thirty years (and counting).

LOL I was waiting for your reply! I did the math with a young trooper the other day (beer bet) I have more time in the Middle East then he has in the service, mmmm...free beer is tasty! He was amazed a Desert Storm guy was still roaming the hallways???

quote:The fact that I know the difference between and 82mm and an 81mm mortar should have clued you in. And maybe the location where I am posting from. So yeah, I have been to Southwest Asia and the Middle East maybe once or twice in my thirty years (and counting).

ok, well, im no weapons expert, but I've been to enough middle eastern countries that I'm not at all surprised when I hear reports that the extremist groups over there are heavily armed.

so my question to you is, Is there anything about the particular weapons used in this attack which should raise suspicion? Are those weapons not typical of the region?